Ben G
Member
Registered: 12th Jan 07
Location: Essex
User status: Offline
|
Didn't live lee have that exact problem, John? Someone hit his audi whilst it was parked and he was in the house iirc.
|
Ian
Site Administrator
Registered: 28th Aug 99
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by John
I know what you mean but I can also see how 'non-fault' can actually be your fault.
I can see that a non-fault accident means you didn't avoid it - but in a lot of cases, that's bollocks.
To take your point to its conclusion, its always your fault for going out that day.
Surely that's what I'm already paying for?
|
RichR
Premium Member
Registered: 17th Oct 01
Location: Waterhouses, Staffordshire
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben G
Didn't live lee have that exact problem, John? Someone hit his Audi whilst it was parked and he was in the house iirc.
yep, I was in bed and the car was on the driveway not even the road; my insurers were notified but the entire claim was settled by the third party's insurer - I definitely got penalised for the next 3 years
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
No.
If they have hard figures to show that you being in a non fault incident (there are rarely, if ever actual accidents), this will cost them more in the future, so they increase the premium. You don't need that explained Ian.
My point was that unlike some other things they increase the premium for, which seem completely made up, and the fact that I also originally thought it was unfair increasing for non-fault, it's actually completely understandable.
If you want to take the point to that conclusion then I'd completely agree. You are ultimately at fault for hitting anything while driving. I'd give some leeway if something fell from the completely open sky above.
No was to Ian before I had seen Lee's reply.
If Lee's car was parked legally then he's one of the unlucky ones. That comes down to him being bundled in with the rest of the stats and not being considered individually. They probably should be able to look at individual cases now.
[Edited on 27-02-2014 by John]
|
Ian
Site Administrator
Registered: 28th Aug 99
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
Its all unlucky though isn't it.
Someone hit my wing mirror while parked at a mate's house - is that luck or shouldn't I have been there?
When calculating my premium there's a reasonable expectation that I'll visit my mates and that I'll park on their roads, and that some will be thinner or busier than others.
They don't go to the trouble of asking me about the friends who have big driveways that I have the use of - so why should they also look surprised when someone squeezes past on a smaller street?
Car is insured Social, Domestic and Pleasure.
Social = parking it at people's houses.
I can fully see the stats bear it out and in some cases, you would discontinue parking there if it was being taken off every week.
But a one-off, on an otherwise incident-free street - I've never seen other mirrors damaged - its not even a busy street. Just one shit driver one day - how does that have any basis in stats? You'd never know. In fact, that guy has moved house now anyway and you need to speak to a security man and go through a barrier to get to his new place - I'll await my refund?
|
Ian
Site Administrator
Registered: 28th Aug 99
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
Was parked by the (A)
http://goo.gl/maps/JDSzj
Still don't know to this day how anyone actually came to hit my car. Bin lorry for scale - you could pass two there and still not crash.
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
I've said a couple of times now if it's something like that you are just being tossed in with the rest of the non-faults, I don't think one of the drop down boxes is mirror off on legally parked car.
I'm also not sticking up for insurance, they are still complete con merchants. Just that the non-fault premium increase isn't as black and white as it would initially appear.
|
Ian
Site Administrator
Registered: 28th Aug 99
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
And on which side does the doubt reside?
I'm agreeing with you - non-fault can mean your road positioning was shit and you didn't indicate - but don't forget in the majority of those cases you would have the accident circumstances and you shouldn't have to assume - if its been ruled non-fault, ie. no claim on your own policy occurred - why should you then pay for it later?
Seems easy to solve - don't pay out as if it were non-fault if later you're going to claim it wasn't.
And if you weren't even in the car - ala Rich's situation - certainly don't.
[Edited on 27-02-2014 by Ian]
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
Not sure how else I can reply. The stats apparently show that you'll cost them money further down the line, that's why you pay for it.
|
Mike
Organiser: North West and North Wales
Premium Member
Registered: 20th May 06
Location: nr. Skipton, North Yorkshire
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by John
Not sure how else I can reply. The stats apparently show that you'll cost them money further down the line, that's why you pay for it.
Another way that crash for cash has cost us all, because of a minority repeatedly claiming for non-fault accidents causing false statistics which insurance companies can use to rip off everyone else rather than investigating false claims and saving themselves and their customers a fortune.
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
As I said, I've not got the figures here but I don't think crash for cash has affected them. It's been going on for longer than that.
|
Ian
Site Administrator
Registered: 28th Aug 99
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
I'm finding it difficult to believe, if you graphed what you're suggesting, there would be a number of people at zero-claims, a dip at 1 and it would rise again as the number of claims went up.
Do the stats seriously suggest that 1 claim is the least frequently occurring situation?
|
JonnyJ
Member
Registered: 23rd Sep 05
Location: Scotchland
User status: Offline
|
I imagine it has, according to Saga Insurance
quote:
Crash for Cash fraud alone costs the insurance industry £392 million each year
Thats a fair chunk to write off as insignificant.
[Edited on 27-02-2014 by JonnyJ]
|
Mike
Organiser: North West and North Wales
Premium Member
Registered: 20th May 06
Location: nr. Skipton, North Yorkshire
User status: Offline
|
I disagree, to my knowledge it's only in recent years that non-fault claims have started to affect your premium which ties in with the start of everyone who isn't at fault in an incident suffering a few grands worth of whiplash despite their car coming out completely unscathed. That and 'claims handlers'. They're all costing insurance companies more money and causing, or at least adding to the stats you mentioned. How could crash for cash not affect stats that apparently say if you make a non-fault claim, you're more likely to claim again? That's exactly what crash for cash is.
|
pow
Premium Member
Registered: 11th Sep 06
Location: Hazlemere, Buckinghamshire
User status: Offline
|
Claims management companies can go fuck themselves
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
If crash for cash has skewed the figures then I completely agree, back to the insurance companies being at fault.
|
RichR
Premium Member
Registered: 17th Oct 01
Location: Waterhouses, Staffordshire
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by pow
Claims management companies can go fuck themselves
When the Audi got hit, I got passed on to another 'department' which ended up being a subsidiary Claims Management Company. At the time, I was oblivious to what they were or did, I essentially thought it was just the Claims department of the insurers. The quotes I had ranged from £750 - £1050 to repair my car and a drop off on Monday would be completed for collection on Friday. Once it went to insurance because the guy couldn't afford the £750-£1050, it ended up taking over 3 months, 90% of what they did, didn't need doing and the hire car was being charged out at £250 per day - iirc the final bill was somewhere in the region of £12,500 for a car which sold a couple of months later for under £3k.
[Edited on 27-02-2014 by RichR]
|
